Recommended Posts

Why would this present moment be different from a past moment, a past moment in which you observed something and then learned of its relationship to an objective assessment by others? Once you learn the potential idiosyncrasies of your own perceptual faculties there is no reason to believe they change on a daily basis or moment to moment (unless some particular circumstance occurs which could be a reason, such as you got bumped on the head resulting in a concussion).

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Could I ask a meta-question: why do you want to use the concepts "subjective" and "objective" at all? or, is that what you're suggesting: i.e. that the distinction is not useful?

No, I am saying it is extremely useful, I just don't have my head around it.

I think my question originated from the conversations in the forum regarding if by survival Rand meant staying alive vs. flourishing and I was making the case that existence vs. nonexistence is objective, everyone knows/(can know) what that struggle is. On the other hand, one man’s flourishing may be completely unimaginable to other people. I don’t want to argue the case here, only the objective vs. subjective aspect. The perceivable to all vs. the perceivable to the privileged.

There is more to it. I consistently encounter people who will say “well, that’s my reality, and we have separate realities” and the conversation ends. At least, I am dumbfounded and I don’t know how to proceed. I walk away saying to myself “he is not being objective, why isn’t that a value to him?

BUT … they can just as well say that I am not being objective. It is almost like it is important to be objective, yet “I have no right to accuse another of being non-objective”.

If you and I are having a conversation, and you are saying something that does not fit into my understanding, when do I have the right to tell you that you are not being objective? Did I have the standing to make that argument when I made it against flourishing?

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yes, one encounters a lot of people who speak about decision-making as if it were subjective and also others who consider some things to be intrinsic. Objectivism refutes both ideas.

There's really two different things going on here: how people decide on their values, and more broadly how they decide on the truth. And, secondly, how they say they decide these things. (I remember having a discussion with a guy who was saying we did not know that this couch actually existed or that this fridge really existed or that the wall existed. Yet, he could get up, go to the fridge, get a beer and flop down on the couch...seemingly with no exhibited doubt about his ability to do so.)

Meanwhile, I'd be happy to challenge you on this:

9 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

No, I am saying it is extremely useful, I just don't have my head around it.

Not that I disagree, but I'm willing to argue against this proposition, and say that we have no use for these terms... if you want to prove to me that we do, and that the terms are really useful.

I mean, if nobody's decision-making is subjective or intrinsic, why even have terms for this? Are they terms like "heaven": something fictional?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I mean, if nobody's decision-making is subjective or intrinsic, why even have terms for this?

Then I would initially argue that at a minimum, between reasonable people who understand the meanings of these terms, it helps the communication.

I wouldn’t challenge “decision-making” as being subjective or intrinsic. I would rather challenge a perception or an understanding or a conclusion as being that.

The issue of values is at the center of ethics, politics, and economics. It would have been great if a value was intrinsic. We would have fewer disagreements. And when we agree that things are a value to a “whom”, the implication can be heard that it is entirely relative and in that sense subjective.

XYZ is beautiful. I say it is true it is a fact. You say it is not.

Isn’t it proper for you to bring up the fact that I have put forth a subjective conclusion?

Assuming I am reasonable, your identifying my statement as subjective should change the direction of the conversation. It should help me realize that just saying that it is beautiful justifiably should not necessarily get an agreement.